Disposed

D..Paranthaman, v. The Chairman

Madras HC16 Feb 2018WP/3352/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a demand notice for payment of electricity arrears due to a meter defect. The High Court, without adjudicating merits, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's objection on merits within two weeks while keeping the demand in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Impugned demand kept in abeyance pending respondent's consideration of petitioner's objection.

D..Paranthaman, Vs The Chairman — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.3352 of 2018 and WMP.No.4102 of 2018

¶6

D.Paranthaman S/o.Dharma Naidu .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited Secretariat Branch 9th Floor, NPKRR Maligai 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶9

2.The Chief Engineer (Distribution) Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited Anna Nagar / Central CEDC/WEST, Secretariat Branch, 9th Floor, NPKRR Maligai 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶10

3.The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution 110/33KV, Thirumangalam SS Campus, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.

¶11

4.The Executive Engineer Operation and Maintenance Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Anna Nagar / Central, CEDC/WEST, Chennai-600 040.

¶12

5.The Assistant Engineer Operation and Maintenance Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Anna Nagar / Central CEDC / WEST, Chennai-600 040. ... Respondents

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the proceedings of the 5th respondent in letter No.AE/O&M/ANR/C/F.A.SF/D.No./314/2018 dated 08.01.2018 issued by 5th respondent and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manisekaran For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Dilipkumar standing counsel

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Mr.P.R.Dilipkumar, learned standing counsel takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶18

The petitioner is aggrieved against the proceedings of the fifth respondent dated 08.01.2018, wherein and whereby, the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.4,47,730/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Only) towards arrears of current consumption charges, due to defect in the meter, within a period of seven days.

¶19

Heard both sides.

¶20

It is seen that the fifth respondent has demanded such payment from the petitioner, claiming to be the arrears of the current consumption charges, based on the audit report. It is also seen that the reason stated for such demand was due to defect in the meter. In the very impugned order itself, the fifth respondent has also given an opportunity to the petitioner to get clarification, if any, by contacting the office of the fifth respondent. Therefore, the petitioner sent an objection on 22.01.2018 and requested to withdraw the impugned demand notice. In the said objection/representation, the petitioner has given certain facts and figures, justifying his stand against the demand.

¶21

This Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, as it is for the fifth respondent to consider and decide, based on the objection raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of, only with a direction to the fifth respondent to consider the objection raised by the petitioner and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law. If the petitioner wishes to give any further additional representation / objection, it is open to him to do so, within a period of 7 days

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation / objection, the fifth respondent is directed to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks, thereafter. Till such time, the impugned demand shall be kept in abeyance. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar
mk
To
1.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited
Secretariat Branch
9th Floor, NPKRR Maligai
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer (Distribution)
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited
Anna Nagar / Central
CEDC/WEST, Secretariat Branch,
9th Floor, NPKRR Maligai
144, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
110/33KV, Thirumangalam
SS Campus, Anna Nagar,
Chennai-600 040.
4.The Executive Engineer
Operation and Maintenance
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Anna Nagar / Central,
CEDC/WEST, Chennai-600 040.

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

5.The Assistant Engineer Operation and Maintenance Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Anna Nagar / Central CEDC / WEST, Chennai-600 040.

¶30

+1 cc to Mr.V.Manisekaran Advocate sr 11960

¶31

W.P.No.3352 of 2018
ad(co)
aa23/02/2018

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

D..Paranthaman, v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D..Paranthaman, v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Poongothai, Vs The District Collector

Ajantha, Vs The District Collector

Venkataramanappa @ Vs The District Revenue Officer

The Divisional Controller Vs The Motor Vehicle Officer

B.Senthilvel Vs The District Collector

R.Kanagaraj Vs The Secretary to Government